DCT

4:26-cv-00831

ABC IP LLC v. East Coast Cerakote LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-02196, D.S.C., 06/04/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of South Carolina because Defendants reside in and/or have a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' aftermarket firearm trigger systems infringe nine U.S. patents related to forced reset trigger mechanisms.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical trigger systems for semi-automatic firearms, designed to increase the potential rate of fire by using the action of the firearm to mechanically reset the trigger after each shot.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff ABC IP, LLC is the owner of the asserted patents by assignment and that Plaintiff Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. is the exclusive licensee. It further alleges that the website for the manufacturer of one of the accused products contains a "FRT Legal Library" linking to several of the asserted patents, which Plaintiffs use as a basis for alleging pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-09-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223
2019-12-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 Issues
2020-01-01 Plaintiffs allege use of FRT Marks began "at least as early as 2020"
2021-11-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784
2022-01-10 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,724,003, 12,036,336, 12,274,807, and 12,636,403
2022-09-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,038,247 and 12,578,159
2023-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 11,724,003 Issues
2023-12-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538
2024-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 Issues
2024-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 Issues
2024-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,036,336 Issues
2025-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807 Issues
2026-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538 Issues
2026-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159 Issues
2026-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 12,636,403 Issues
2026-06-04 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 - "Firearm Trigger Mechanism"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued July 16, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the desire among some firearm users to increase the rate of semi-automatic fire Compl. ¶¶24-25 Standard semi-automatic triggers require the user to release and reset the trigger after each shot, which limits firing speed Compl. ¶25 Prior art solutions to accelerate this process, such as "bump firing," are described as having various drawbacks (Compl. p. 6, footnote on prior art not included in OCR; '247 Patent, col. 1:39-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a trigger mechanism that can operate in a standard semi-automatic mode or a "forced reset" mode Compl. ¶27 In the forced reset mode, the cycling of the firearm's bolt carrier causes a cam to pivot, which in turn physically forces the trigger member back to its reset position Compl. ¶27 '247 Patent, abstract This mechanical reset allows a user to fire the next round as soon as the bolt carrier is back in battery, without needing to manually release the trigger Compl. ¶26 '247 Patent, col. 2:25-45
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a "drop-in" modular trigger system that allows for an increased rate of fire in common firearm platforms like the AR-15, purportedly overcoming the limitations of prior art acceleration techniques Compl. ¶27 '247 Patent, col. 2:25-33

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 Compl. ¶62
  • Essential elements of claim 15 include:
    • A firearm trigger mechanism comprising a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, and a cam with a cam lobe.
    • The cam is movable between a first position and a second position, where in the second position the cam lobe forces the trigger member toward its set position.
    • The mechanism operates in two modes: a "standard semi-automatic mode" where the user must manually release the trigger to reset the disconnector, and a "forced reset semi-automatic mode."
    • In the forced reset mode, the cam is in its second position, and rearward movement of the bolt carrier causes the disconnector hook to be prevented from catching the hammer hook, allowing the user to fire again once the bolt carrier is in battery.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶62

U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 - "Adapted Forced Reset Trigger"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784, "Adapted Forced Reset Trigger," issued July 9, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that existing forced reset triggers, such as the one described in U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, may not be compatible with different firearm platforms (e.g., an AR-10 versus an AR-15) due to variations in the geometry and positioning of the bolt carrier '784 Patent, col. 1:20-44 An extended locking bar that works in one platform might interfere with the bolt carrier's movement in another '784 Patent, col. 1:40-44
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an extended trigger locking device that features an "upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion" '784 Patent, abstract '784 Patent, col. 2:60-65 This allows the extension to be actuated by the bolt carrier's forward movement to unlock the trigger, but also to "deflect or fold" out of the way to avoid interfering with the bolt carrier as it cycles rearward '784 Patent, col. 2:2-6 The patent figures illustrate this as a hinged lever arm on the locking member '784 Patent, FIG. 10
  • Technical Importance: This design provides an adaptable forced reset trigger mechanism that can function across multiple firearm platforms with different bolt carrier dimensions, increasing its versatility '784 Patent, col. 1:45-51

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶77
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • In a forced reset trigger mechanism, an extended trigger member locking device comprising a locking member.
    • The locking member is movable between a first (locked) position and a second (unlocked) position.
    • The locking member includes a generally upward extension portion configured to make "actuating contact" with a bolt carrier surface to move it from the first to the second position.
    • The locking member has a body portion and an "upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion between an extended position and a deflected position."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶77

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,529,538, "Safety Mechanism for Firearm," issued January 20, 2026.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a safety mechanism employing a "cam selector" that interacts with a trigger tail portion to provide three modes of operation Compl. ¶29 The modes are allegedly selected by moving between different recesses on the cam selector, which can allow the trigger to move, force a reset, or prevent the trigger from being pulled '538 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 Compl. ¶92
  • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" product is alleged to infringe by embodying a safety mechanism with a "dual mode cam selector" that allows for selection of safe, active reset, and passive reset modes Compl. ¶¶34, 57, 92 Compl. p. 57

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued March 17, 2026.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a trigger mechanism for accelerating the firing sequence of a semi-automatic firearm Compl. ¶27 The device is selectable between a standard semi-automatic mode and a "forced reset" mode where the cycling of the firearm's action rotates a cam to force the trigger member back to its reset position '159 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 Compl. ¶106
  • Accused Features: The "Super Safety" and "ARC-Fire" products are alleged to infringe by operating as forced reset trigger mechanisms with selectable standard and forced reset semi-automatic modes Compl. ¶¶106, 108

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223, "Firearm Trigger Mechanism," issued December 24, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a device where the cycling of the firearm's action causes the hammer to make contact with the trigger member, forcefully resetting both Compl. ¶30 A locking bar is included to prevent the trigger from being pulled again until the bolt carrier has returned to its in-battery position '223 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 4 Compl. ¶121
  • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is alleged to infringe by using hammer contact to forcefully reset the trigger and a locking bar to prevent out-of-battery firing Compl. ¶¶38, 43, 121

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,724,003; 12,036,336; 12,274,807; and 12,636,403

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,724,003 (issued Aug. 15, 2023), 12,036,336 (issued Jul. 16, 2024), 12,274,807 (issued Apr. 15, 2025), and 12,636,403 (issued May 26, 2026).
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint groups these patents as describing and claiming a "similarly operating device" that can be selected to operate in either a standard disconnector semi-automatic mode or a forced reset semi-automatic mode Compl. ¶31 These patents generally relate to multi-mode forced reset triggers incorporating a housing, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and a locking member '003 Patent, abstract '336 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 4 of the '003 Patent, claim 3 of the '336 Patent, claim 1 of the '807 Patent, and claim 38 of the '403 Patent Compl. ¶¶135, 149, 163, 177
  • Accused Features: The "Disruptor" product is alleged to infringe the '003, '336, and '807 patents Compl. ¶38 All three accused products-"Disruptor," "Super Safety," and "ARC-Fire"-are alleged to infringe the '403 patent Compl. ¶¶34, 38, 46, 177, 179-181

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Super Safety," the "Partisan Disruptor," and the "ARC-Fire" trigger systems (collectively, the "Infringing Devices") Compl. ¶33

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are aftermarket, multi-position trigger systems for AR-15-pattern firearms Compl. ¶¶34, 38, 46 They are sold as standalone products, in kits, or pre-installed in firearms Compl. ¶¶35, 40, 47
  • Functionally, they are described as enabling a user to switch between a standard semi-automatic mode (referred to as "disconnector mode") and a "forced reset" semi-automatic mode Compl. ¶¶37, 42 In the forced reset mode, the cycling of the firearm's action is alleged to forcefully reset the trigger, enabling a higher rate of fire (Compl. ¶26, Compl. ¶43).
  • The complaint provides a product screenshot for the "Super Safety FLAT Face Trigger Kit," which includes several interacting mechanical components Compl. p. 9
  • The complaint alleges Defendants market these products using the "FRT" designation, which Plaintiffs claim as their trademark, suggesting the products are positioned in the market as "Forced Reset Triggers" Compl. ¶¶55-57

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides claim charts with plaintiff-generated, color-coded diagrams illustrating the alleged infringement of claim 15 by the Super Safety and ARC-Fire products Compl. ¶¶64-65 A plaintiff-generated rendering shows the alleged interaction of the accused ARC-Fire's hammer, trigger, and cam mechanism within a firearm receiver Compl. p. 27

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a hammer having a sear catch and a hook for engaging a disconnector... The accused products are installed with a hammer (red) that has a sear catch and a hook for engaging a disconnector (orange). ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:3-4
a trigger member having a sear and adapted to be mounted in the fire control mechanism pocket to pivot... The products include a trigger member (brown) installed in the fire control pocket that has a sear and pivots on a transverse axis. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:8-10
a disconnector having a hook for engaging said hammer and adapted to be mounted in the fire control mechanism pocket to pivot... The products include a disconnector (orange) with a hook adapted to engage the hammer and pivot on a transverse axis. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:26-27
and a cam having a cam lobe and adapted to be movably mounted in the fire control mechanism pocket, The products include a cam with a cam lobe (yellow/blue) that is movably mounted in the fire control mechanism pocket. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:31-33
said cam being movable between a first position and a second position, in said second position said cam lobe forces said trigger member towards said set position, The accused cam is movable between positions; in the second ("forced reset") position, the cam lobe forces the trigger member toward the set position. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:34-37
whereupon in a standard semi-automatic mode, ... a user must manually release said trigger member to free said hammer from said disconnector... In standard mode, the cam is in the first position, and the user must manually release the trigger to permit the hammer and trigger to pivot to the set positions. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:38-48
and whereupon in a forced reset semi-automatic mode, ... said disconnector hook is prevented from catching said hammer hook, ... at which time the user can pull said trigger member to fire the firearm. In forced reset mode, the cam is in the second position, and rearward movement of the bolt carrier pivots the hammer such that the disconnector hook is prevented from catching the hammer hook. ¶64; ¶65 col. 8:49-56

U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides claim charts alleging infringement of claim 1 by the Super Safety and ARC-Fire products, supported by plaintiff-generated renderings Compl. ¶¶79-80 A diagram illustrates how the accused ARC-Fire's upwardly extending portion allegedly deflects separately from its body Compl. p. 52

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In a forced reset trigger mechanism, an extended trigger member locking device, comprising: a locking member that is movable between a first position in which it locks a trigger against pulling movement and a second position where it does not restrict movement... The accused products allegedly function as an extended trigger member locking device with a locking member movable between a locked first position and an unlocked second position. ¶79; ¶80 col. 3:12-16
the locking member configured to be movably supported by a frame The accused locking member is movably supported by the firearm's lower receiver (the frame). ¶79; ¶80 col. 2:60-62
and including a generally upward extension portion configured to make actuating contact with a surface of the bolt carrier, The accused locking member has an upward extending portion (lever arm) configured to make contact with the bolt carrier. ¶79; ¶80 col. 2:62-63
the locking member having a body portion that is movably supported and an upwardly extending deflectable portion that is separately movable relative to the body portion between an extended position and a deflected position. The accused ARC-Fire has an upwardly extending deflectable portion (lever arm) where the connection is allegedly designed to allow separate movement of the lever arm relative to the body portion. ¶80 col. 2:60-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • A primary technical question for all asserted patents will be whether the specific sequence of mechanical interactions in the accused products matches the detailed functional limitations recited in the claims, particularly for the dual-mode operation.
    • For the '247 Patent, a point of contention may be whether the accused cam's interaction with the trigger "forces" the trigger to the set position and "prevents" the disconnector from catching the hammer hook in the precise manner claimed.
    • For the '784 Patent, the analysis will likely focus on the "separately movable" limitation. A key question will be whether the accused products' lever arms are merely flexible or possess a distinct, separate range of motion relative to the main body of the locking member, as the claim language may require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "forces said trigger member towards said set position" (from claim 15 of the '247 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the "forced reset" concept. The definition will be critical for determining whether the interaction between the accused cam and trigger constitutes the specific type of forced action required by the claim, as opposed to merely assisting or enabling a reset.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint uses the general term "forcibly reset" Compl. ¶30 The patent's summary describes the invention as providing a mechanism where "the normal resetting of the hammer... causes the trigger to be forcibly reset" '247 Patent, col. 2:37-40, which might suggest any reset caused by hammer movement is sufficient.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific mechanism: "said cam lobe forces said trigger member" (emphasis added). The specification describes a direct mechanical action where "the cam lobe 78 on the cam 72 then engages the cam follower 58 on the trigger member 38 to force the trigger member 38 to the set position" '247 Patent, col. 10:1-4 This points to a specific, direct interaction, not just a general result.

  • The Term: "separately movable" (from claim 1 of the '784 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the novel feature of the '784 Patent, intended to distinguish it from prior art locking bars by allowing adaptation to different firearm geometries. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple flexible component infringes, or if a more complex, multi-part hinged structure is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states the invention provides a "deflectable extension" that "deflects or folds" '784 Patent, col. 1:52 '784 Patent, col. 2:4-5, language which could encompass mere bending or flexing of a single component.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment described in the specification and shown in the figures depicts a distinct "foldable extension portion 22 that pivots on, for example a transverse pivot pin 24 relative to the locking bar body 26" '784 Patent, col. 3:23-26 This explicit description of a two-part, pinned construction may support a narrower definition requiring structural separability, not just material flexibility.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructions and guidance for customers to install and use the infringing products Compl. ¶¶66, 81, 95 Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused product components are "specially designed and adapted" for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶¶68, 83, 97
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claims are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, citing a "FRT Legal Library" on a manufacturer's website that purportedly links to several of the asserted patents and shows their relevance to the accused products Compl. ¶¶49, 53 Plaintiffs allege that in view of this knowledge, Defendants could not have formed a reasonable belief that their actions did not constitute infringement Compl. ¶¶69, 84, 98

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of functional mechanics: Does the precise sequence of operations in the accused "Super Safety," "Disruptor," and "ARC-Fire" triggers-particularly the interaction between the cam, trigger, and disconnector in different modes-map directly onto the detailed, multi-step functional limitations recited in the asserted claims?
  • A central question of claim construction will be the scope of the term "separately movable" in the '784 patent. The case may turn on whether this requires a distinct, hinged component as shown in the patent's embodiment, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a single, flexible part.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: Can Plaintiffs prove that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, particularly through the alleged "FRT Legal Library," and if so, did Defendants engage in conduct that rises to the level of willful infringement despite that knowledge?